Background
Frederick Barnes pleaded guilty in 2018 to attempted breaking and entering and petty theft after being charged with entering M.S.’s office and stealing a pistol and nail gun. Although the State requested restitution and submitted supporting paperwork, the trial court imposed time served without mentioning or ordering restitution.
M.S. timely appealed under Ohio’s Marsy’s Law amendment but voluntarily dismissed that appeal amid uncertainty over the proper procedure for enforcing victims’ rights. She instead obtained partial mandamus relief, but subsequent proceedings ultimately ended without a restitution hearing. About five years after dismissing her original appeal, M.S. sought leave to file a delayed appeal from the sentencing entry. The Eighth District denied leave because App.R. 5(A) permits delayed appeals only by defendants in specified criminal and juvenile proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed. App.R. 4(A) required M.S. to appeal within 30 days, and App.R. 5(A) did not authorize her delayed appeal because she was a crime victim, not a defendant. The court declined to decide whether res judicata independently barred the appeal because the appellate rules resolved the case.
The court also rejected M.S.’s constitutional arguments. Marsy’s Law grants victims a right to seek appellate review when relief is denied, but it does not create an unrestricted right to appeal at any time or place the appellate right within the provision requiring certain victims’ rights to be protected as vigorously as defendants’ rights. Due process was satisfied because M.S. had a timely appellate opportunity that she voluntarily abandoned. Limiting delayed appeals to defendants also survived rational-basis review because defendants face a potential loss of liberty or even death, providing a rational basis for different treatment. Any expansion of App.R. 5(A) to include victims must occur through Ohio’s constitutional rulemaking process, not judicial revision in an individual case.
Key Takeaways
- A crime victim seeking review of a restitution denial must comply with App.R. 4(A)’s 30-day filing deadline.
- App.R. 5(A) authorizes delayed appeals for defendants in specified proceedings, not for crime victims.
- Marsy’s Law, due process, and equal protection did not require the court to revive M.S.’s voluntarily dismissed appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Ohio crime victims possess appellate rights but remain subject to ordinary procedural deadlines. A victim’s constitutional right to restitution and appellate review does not supply an open-ended opportunity to appeal after the original deadline has expired.
The court acknowledged that policy reasons might support allowing delayed appeals by victims in some circumstances, but held that such a change must proceed through formal amendment of the appellate rules. Attorneys representing victims should therefore preserve timely direct appeals even when pursuing extraordinary-writ relief or confronting uncertainty about the proper procedural vehicle.